Lifnei Iver

[Marta]

There were many "good" scriptural passages in the New Testament about this subject of "Lifnei Iver" -

Lifnei Iver: The Prohibition against Entrapment

The Torah (Vaykira 19:14) prohibits placing a stumbling block in front of a blind person. This prohibition is commonly known as lifnei iver (before a blind person). Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature presents numerous applications to this prohibition. In this issue, we will discuss some of those applications and how they relate to practical life.

The Nature of the Prohibition

The Midrash, Sifra, Kedoshim no. 2, applies the prohibition of lifnei iver to giving improper advice to someone who is "blind" on that matter. One example that the Midrash provides is advising someone that a certain woman is permitted to marry a kohen when in reality she is not. Another example that the Midrash provides is telling someone to travel early in the morning knowing that he will be attacked by bandits.

The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 6b, applies the prohibition of lifnei iver to a case of enabling someone else to violate a transgression. The Gemara's example is providing a cup a wine to a nazir (someone who has taken an oath prohibiting him from drinking wine). The Gemara states that the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver is only violated if one provides the wine in a situation where the nazir has no other reasonable means of attaining wine. If he has other means of attaining the wine, there is no biblical violation of lifnei iver. Tosfaot, ad loc., s.v Minayin, add that one only violates lifnei iver in a case similar to providing a cup of wine, where the assumption is that he is going to drink it, or in a case where the individual states explicitly what he is going to do with the item. However, if a Jew asks someone for something that can be used for a transgression or for something permissible, there is no prohibition to give it to him and suspect that he will violate the transgression.

The Midrash and the Gemara provide two different methods of violating lifnei iver by causing someone to commit a transgression. In the Midrash's case, the "blind person" ends up violating a transgression because he was misinformed about the transgression. In the Gemara's case, the "blind person" violates a transgression knowingly, but only with the help of another. http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/_lec...shiurId=733139

[Faber]

It seems to me that Rambam identified with the Midrash, but applied Devarim 22:8 to any action (or inaction) leading to a transgression.

[Marta]

It seems to me that Rambam identified with the Midrash, but applied Devarim 22:8 to any action (or inaction) leading to a transgression.

This statement is exactly what I saying in some of my post, "While midrashic texts and statements can appear illogical and random when taken out of context, they are in fact the products of a holistic system guided primarily by middot (rules of exegesis) within a range of favored genres."

When the law is taken out of context or misinterpreted it can be the equivalency to the story of Eli the priest and Chana when he disarranges the 12 stones or misinterprets them. There are so many entries in the Torah that deal with certain aspects of human life that you would have to the wisdom and understanding from God to the law otherwise one would make it very weak. Given an example - for instance: This is a classic example of having the power of 'Urim' but not the power of 'Tumim'. A person can sometimes be blinded. Whether it is for reasons of personal motive or out of fear of people or for any other reason. For some reason, Shaul HaMelech misinterpreted the 'Urim'. He looked at the words of the Torah and said, 'This is what HaShem means; this is what HaShem wants' - - and yet was completely wrong. http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfra.../tetzaveh.html


There is a famous Gemara about the High Priest Eli, who misread the letters of the Urim v'Tumim regarding Chana. Eli read the letters appearing on the Breastplate to be Shin-Cof-Reish-Hay (Shikorah -- drunken one) when in fact the correct reading was Cof-Shin-Reish-Hay (Kesheira -- worthy one). At that precise moment, Eli lacked the power of 'Tumim'.

[Marta]

[Marta]

I think 1 Corinthians 8: *really nails this*

Perhaps our question hinges on this debate, as well. If livnei iveir is a general prohibition against causing others to sin then it should not apply when the act does not constitute a sin for them. But if it is an extension of specific prohibitions, forbidding not only your commission of the act but of causing others too as well, then it would apply as long as the act is forbidden to you.